Criminal proceeding for sec. 498A can be quash even after judgment and while pending appeal

Accused convicted for the offences punishable u/s.498 A, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC - matrimonial dispute - during the pendency of appeal against conviction accused and informant arrived at settlement and decided to end the dispute - sought quashing of proceeding u/s.482 - judgment of conviction quashed.

It is undisputed that during the pendency of the appeal challenging the judgment of conviction, the matrimonial dispute between the applicant no.1 and the applicant no.7 stands settled. As observed in Saloni Rupam Bhartiya { 2015 (4) RCR (Criminal) 172} and Ramesh s/ o Shaligram Dode & Ors. {2014 ALL MR (Cri) 282.}, if during the pendency of the proceedings the matrimonial dispute between the parties stands settled, the Court can quash the criminal proceedings in their entirety by invoking powers under Section 482 of the Code. We find the present case to be a fit one to exercise such jurisdiction.[Para No.5]

“account closed”, “payment stopped”, “referred to the drawer”, “signatures do not match”, “image is not found” attracts sec. 138 of N.I. Act

The above line of decisions leaves no room for holding that the two contingencies envisaged under Section 138 of the Act must be interpreted strictly or literally. We find ourselves in respectful agreement with the decision in NEPC Micon Ltd. (supra) that the expression “amount of money …………. is insufficient” appearing in Section 138 of the Act is a genus and dishonour for reasons such “as account closed”, “payment stopped”, “referred to the drawer” are only species of that genus. Just as dishonour of a cheque on the ground that the account has been closed is a dishonour falling in the first contingency referred to in Section 138, so also dishonour on the ground that the “signatures do not match” or that the “image is not found”, which too implies that the specimen signatures do not match the signatures on the cheque would constitute a dishonour within the meaning of Section 138 of the Act. This Court has in the decisions referred to above taken note of situations and contingencies arising out of deliberate acts of omission or commission on the part of the drawers of the cheques which would inevitably result in the dishonour of the cheque issued by them. For instance this Court has held that if after issue of the cheque the drawer closes the account it must be presumed that the amount in the account was nil hence insufficient to meet the demand of the cheque. A similar result can be brought about by the drawer changing his specimen signature given to the bank or in the case of a company by the company changing the mandate of those authorised to sign the cheques on its behalf.